Ethnicity of the Ancient Macedonians and Megas Alexandros.

[QuintusSertorius]

the point point is that he wasnt greek . how an ethiopian can be greek? the fact that he is the hero in a greek epic doest make him greek specialy in one names ethiopis

Because "being Greek" was cultural, not ethnic.

Do you really think a "Greek" from Massalia, Syrakousai, Kyrene, Alexandreia, Antiocheia, Sinope and Baktria all shared similar heritage?

[Cohors_Evocata]

I made my comments regarding SJW's meaning that the urge to shy away from discussions of ethnicity because it might lead to some uncomfortable discussion is a very "social justice" thing to. I think we're all better than that here. As mature adults, we can have reasonable discourse without people instantly getting butthurt. Back on topic, thank you for your links and insight. Should make for some interesting reading!

Meh, establishing circlejerks and avoiding certain topics isn't reserved for any political ideology IMO. The issue here isn't so much that the subject of ethnicity is inherently uncomfortable, but that similar threads on the subject have degenerated into childish flame wars or name-calling once certain people felt their national sensibilities were being insulted. Whether that's a valid reason to avoid the discussion is a personal choice and can be debated, but I don't see any issues in reasonable discussion like this myself. (Fun fact, I wasn't an adult yet when I discovered this site and first participated on it, under a different name.)

More on-topic, I believe there's a current academic discussion on whether one can safely identity tribal or ethnic identity from burials based on such things as cultural or identity markers. Haven't read up on it, so don't take my word on it though.

[Roma_Victrix]

Because "being Greek" was cultural, not ethnic.

Do you really think a "Greek" from Massalia, Syrakousai, Kyrene, Alexandreia, Antiocheia, Sinope and Baktria all shared similar heritage?

Well, no, but one should keep in mind that Massalia was originally a Phocaean colony of Greeks from Asia Minor, Syrakousai was founded by Greek colonists from Korinthos and Tenea in Greece's Peloponnese, Kyrene was originally founded by Greeks from Thera (modern Santorini in the Aegean Sea), Alexandreia and Antiocheia were obviously founded by Macedonians (as was Baktria), and Sinope was originally a colony of Greeks from Miletus. Of course there would have been a lot of intermarriage with local populations over the centuries, but I think it's safe to say the colonization of these far-flung territories left a genetic imprint of the original founders.

Meh, establishing circlejerks and avoiding certain topics isn't reserved for any political ideology IMO. The issue here isn't so much that the subject of ethnicity is inherently uncomfortable, but that similar threads on the subject have degenerated into childish flame wars or name-calling once certain people felt their national sensibilities were being insulted. Whether that's a valid reason to avoid the discussion is a personal choice, but I don't sees any issues in reasonable discussion like this myself. (Fun fact, I wasn't an adult yet when I discovered this site and first participated on it, under a different name).

Well, yeah, SJWs are annoying when it comes to discussion about race and ethnicity, but I fail to see how they are relevant, especially in a conversation about ancient Macedonians. You're more likely to run into right-wing nationalists from the "Republic of Macedonia" and their counterpart Greek nationalists while having such a discussion anywhere online (especially on Wikipedia and of course Youtube).

[QuintusSertorius]

Well, no, but one should keep in mind that Massalia was originally a Phocaean colony of Greeks from Asia Minor, Syrakousai was founded by Greek colonists from Korinthos and Tenea in Greece's Peloponnese, Kyrene was originally founded by Greeks from Thera (modern Santorini in the Aegean Sea), Alexandreia and Antiocheia were obviously founded by Macedonians (as was Baktria), and Sinope was originally a colony of Greeks from Miletus. Of course there would have been a lot of intermarriage with local populations over the centuries, but I think it's safe to say the colonization of these far-flung territories left a genetic imprint of the original founders.

Massalia in 272BC is over three centuries from it's founding. Most of those original colonists were likely single men, and so took local wives. There's even a founding myth about Protis, one of the original settlers marrying a Ligurian chieftain's daughter, who helped him find the bay the town was situated on. Even if there were migrations of local Greeks (from Megale Hellas, for example) into the settlement, there's little chance those men would be very Greek.

Never mind that Phokaia itself was a colony outside Hellas (founded by Athenians or Aeolians in the 9th century BC) which likely involved significant inter-marriages with the Anatolian locals in the three centuries before it issued colonists to southern France. So we have three centuries of intermixing with Anatolians, followed by three centuries of mixing with Ligurians and Celts, and you'd have me believe there'd still be a significant genetic imprint of Greekness?

Many of those mentioned were colonies of colonies - or even further removed from Hellas than that. Trying to claim some sort of ethnic Greekness is not only ahistorical, given the cultural focus at the time, but rather ridiculous. Have you seen this chart showing the level of genetic commonality between and across generations:



Four generations from your Greek great-grandfather, you only have 6.25% "Greek" DNA. 300 years is approximately 15 generations, so we're talking someone with less than 1% "Greek" DNA trying to make some ethnic claim to Greekness? Even if they tried to keep subsequent generations marrying into the original families, they'd still have a limited ability to retain the Greek element of DNA. That's assuming they were 100% Greek in the first place, which given we're talking about a colony-of-a-colony, is pretty unlikely.

[Jurand of Cracow]

Because "being Greek" was cultural, not ethnic.

Being Greek was also political: those who lived in the political system of polis. As Makedonia (or Epirus) lived in a form of monarchy, for many ancient authors (more philosophical oriented, I think) those territories were not considered to be Greek.

[Roma_Victrix]

Massalia in 272BC is over three centuries from it's founding. Most of those original colonists were likely single men, and so took local wives. There's even a founding myth about Protis, one of the original settlers marrying a Ligurian chieftain's daughter, who helped him find the bay the town was situated on. Even if there were migrations of local Greeks (from Megale Hellas, for example) into the settlement, there's little chance those men would be very Greek.

Never mind that Phokaia itself was a colony outside Hellas (founded by Athenians or Aeolians in the 9th century BC) which likely involved significant inter-marriages with the Anatolian locals in the three centuries before it issued colonists to southern France. So we have three centuries of intermixing with Anatolians, followed by three centuries of mixing with Ligurians and Celts, and you'd have me believe there'd still be a significant genetic imprint of Greekness?

Many of those mentioned were colonies of colonies - or even further removed from Hellas than that. Trying to claim some sort of ethnic Greekness is not only ahistorical, given the cultural focus at the time, but rather ridiculous. Have you seen this chart showing the level of genetic commonality between and across generations:



Four generations from your Greek great-grandfather, you only have 6.25% "Greek" DNA. 300 years is approximately 15 generations, so we're talking someone with less than 1% "Greek" DNA trying to make some ethnic claim to Greekness? Even if they tried to keep subsequent generations marrying into the original families, they'd still have a limited ability to retain the Greek element of DNA. That's assuming they were 100% Greek in the first place, which given we're talking about a colony-of-a-colony, is pretty unlikely.

That's a great rebuttal, with a sound and reasonable argument, but unfortunately we don't have detailed demographic statistics to say one way or the other, and we should also keep in mind that not every colony followed the same settlement pattern. Some colonies, long after their founding, were even replenished with new colonists from the mother city (i.e. the metropolis), especially after episodes where the mother city underwent turbulent times. Take for instance Emporion, originally founded in 575 BC by Phocaeans, which received an influx of new refugees from their mother city due to the siege of it by Persian King Cyrus II 'the Great' in 530 BC. Mind you, that's still long before the start date of EB II, but it's just one example. One should also take into account the continued relationship many of these colonies had with their mother cities, looking to them not only for guidance on certain issues, but also when they desired to form new colonies of their own, sometimes having these missions led by people from the mother city. Important colonies closer to the core of Greek civilization, like Syracuse, would have also had a lot more interaction with and receiving of immigrants/itinerant traders from other Greek areas.

I certainly agree with you about intermarriage with local natives, though, that was obviously very common if not expected. Hell, in some cases it was outright promoted by leaders such as Alexander the Great, who pressured his hetairoi to wed and bed native women in Bactria around the time he wed Roxana (and later when he married Persian princesses at the Susa weddings).

[Boriak]

I vaguely remember reading that Memnon was of Aegean origins so not Ethiopian. A foreign ruler to his adopted country. That's why he had cause to join the Trojan war.

[clone]

Because "being Greek" was cultural, not ethnic.

Do you really think a "Greek" from Massalia, Syrakousai, Kyrene, Alexandreia, Antiocheia, Sinope and Baktria all shared similar heritage?

you are mostly wrong
some points:
before alexanders time greeks were mostly conservative about greekness and heritage thats one of the reason also than in olympics even after alexander(olympics had both cultural and religious significance) you had to prove your heritage and not you bachelor in ancient greek culture
. it is true the farther someone was from main greece more chances that 100% pure greek heritage concept became weaker .
but for ancient greeks (mainland )either you were greek or not.you couldnt becaume greek! if they knew your heritage was not greek not matter how "greek" were your ways you would alway be the stranger, or the helenized barbarian at best.even if you had citizenship.
heritage was so importand in greek culture that after many many years in eastern roman empire (a multi ethnic empire ) one emperor was called scythian by his opponents even if he had greek culture ( i think nikiphoros phokas may be the one)

[NosPortatArma]

you are mostly wrong
some points:
before alexanders time greeks were mostly conservative about greekness and heritage thats one of the reason also than in olympics even after alexander(olympics had both cultural and religious significance) you had to prove your heritage and not you bachelor in ancient greek culture
. it is true the farther someone was from main greece more chances that 100% pure greek heritage concept became weaker .
but for ancient greeks (mainland )either you were greek or not.you couldnt becaume greek! if they knew your heritage was not greek not matter how "greek" were your ways you would alway be the stranger, or the helenized barbarian at best.even if you had citizenship.
heritage was so importand in greek culture that after many many years in eastern roman empire (a multi ethnic empire ) one emperor was called scythian by his opponents even if he had greek culture ( i think nikiphoros phokas may be the one)

this may sound odd, but why should necessarily go by the southern greeks' exclusive definition of greekness? if it is the case, and for all i know it is, that the macedonians and epirots were descended from the same people as the southern greeks, and that the only difference was basically that the south developed a polis-culture whereas as the north retained a homeric-age culture with kings and clans, are they not still both greek? What do we even mean by greek? descended from greeks? in that case macedonians were greek (as far as I know). deemed by southern greeks to be greek? Then maybe not, but what if we asked the macedonians if they considered themselves greek? If they both share the same heritage I don't see why the opinion of southern greeks should weigh heavier than that of northern greeks.

[QuintusSertorius]

you are mostly wrong
some points:
before alexanders time greeks were mostly conservative about greekness and heritage thats one of the reason also than in olympics even after alexander(olympics had both cultural and religious significance) you had to prove your heritage and not you bachelor in ancient greek culture
. it is true the farther someone was from main greece more chances that 100% pure greek heritage concept became weaker .
but for ancient greeks (mainland )either you were greek or not.you couldnt becaume greek! if they knew your heritage was not greek not matter how "greek" were your ways you would alway be the stranger, or the helenized barbarian at best.even if you had citizenship.
heritage was so importand in greek culture that after many many years in eastern roman empire (a multi ethnic empire ) one emperor was called scythian by his opponents even if he had greek culture ( i think nikiphoros phokas may be the one)

Sorry, but this is absolute nonsense. Greekness was not hereditary and it certainly wasn't ethnic or genetic. A man from the polis of Syracuse was just as Greek as one from Athens as was one from Miletos as was one from Kyrene. If they spoke Greek, followed Greek customs and politics, and held citizenship of a Greek polis, they were Greek.

[clone]

Sorry, but this is absolute nonsense. Greekness was not hereditary and it certainly wasn't ethnic or genetic. A man from the polis of Syracuse was just as Greek as one from Athens as was one from Miletos as was one from Kyrene. If they spoke Greek, followed Greek customs and politics, and held citizenship of a Greek polis, they were Greek.

Sorry, but this is absolute nonsense. Greekness was not hereditary and it certainly wasn't ethnic or genetic. A man from the polis of Syracuse was just as Greek as one from Athens as was one from Miletos as was one from Kyrene. If they spoke Greek, followed Greek customs and politics, and held citizenship of a Greek polis, they were Greek.

then why in olympics games you had to show your greek heritage?
also you have some things wrong:
1: most of the cases you refer were half-greeks as you said(at least in west) so in one way heritage comes into play
2 if someone was from from "barbarian" parents he would be considered barbarian even a helenized one. Anacharsis was considered scythian even if his mother was greek (let alone someome who didnt have a greek parents ) and he mastered one of the greatest part of greek culture ,phylosophy
My country is a disgrace to me, but you are a disgrace to your country.

• On being insulted by an Athenian for being a Scythian, as quoted in The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers by Diogenes Laërtius,

When Philip returned to Pella, he fell in love with and married Cleopatra Eurydice, the niece of his general Attalus.^[29] The marriage made Alexander's position as heir less secure, since any son of Cleopatra Eurydice would be a fully Macedonian heir, while Alexander was only half-Macedonian.
i wonder why when in regional identities ,heritage playes a role (the fact whether alexander was full macedonian or half epirote) but in greek identitie which macedonian belongs doesnt play a role?
sorry but dont put todays standards in that time.

this may sound odd, but why should necessarily go by the southern greeks' exclusive definition of greekness? .

first of all except few philosofers and alexander even northern greeks had this definition of greekness as my example about alexander shows. only greeks in kindoms who were far away from greece and ruled many people changed and still not completely

[Rad]

I am not getting into this one.

[Brihentin13]

Meh, establishing circlejerks and avoiding certain topics isn't reserved for any political ideology IMO. The issue here isn't so much that the subject of ethnicity is inherently uncomfortable, but that similar threads on the subject have degenerated into childish flame wars or name-calling once certain people felt their national sensibilities were being insulted. Whether that's a valid reason to avoid the discussion is a personal choice and can be debated, but I don't see any issues in reasonable discussion like this myself. (Fun fact, I wasn't an adult yet when I discovered this site and first participated on it, under a different name.)

More on-topic, I believe there's a current academic discussion on whether one can safely identity tribal or ethnic identity from burials based on such things as cultural or identity markers. Haven't read up on it, so don't take my word on it though.

That's a very reasonable concern to have. Alas, this is the internet, so childish flamewars are inevitable.

[Aleksander the Average]

oh good grief not another one of these threads...

[Nightsh4de]

and...... it got out of control (as this kind of conversation usually does)

[Sarkiss]

Being Greek was also political: those who lived in the political system of polis. As Makedonia (or Epirus) lived in a form of monarchy, for many ancient authors (more philosophical oriented, I think) those territories were not considered to be Greek.

yes, there is a political element to 'Greekness'. its too simplistic to think of it as made of only a cultural or ethnic aspect and seems to be a combination of all of the above.